On 2007/09/05 22:00 (GMT+0100) Rick Lecoat apparently typed: > (Felix argues that the browser vendors arrived at their default size > after long and careful research, but AFAIK said research remains hearsay).
Bits of it are scattered about on the web, including Mozilla's bugzilla. A scour of http://blogs.msdn.com/fontblog/ might turn up something somewhat comprehensive. Earlier I provided a component of it: http://blogs.msdn.com/fontblog/archive/2005/11/08/490490.aspx > To restate my earlier point (hopefully with greater clarity): > No matter what you do, people will look at a page and (probably) either > say "the type is too big" or "the type is too small". There's another possibility: "it's just fine". > In either case > they can adjust it accordingly, except that those who want to make it > smaller (eg. those without accessibility issues) are *perhaps* less > likely to know how to. And *perhaps* that's one argument for designing > with smaller type as a baseline. Other food for thought: http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/essence.html http://www.dev-archive.net/articles/font-analogy.html http://www.lighthouse.org/accessibility/boomers/ http://www.cameratim.com/personal/soapbox/morons-in-webspace -- "It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape." Chief Justice Joseph Story Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
